B-17 hits from 1600 yards, you can't hit 1400 yards?

[Fishu]

Chased B-17 for somewhile in 190, got few hits from it at 1300-1600 yards, but I couldnt hit him from 1200-1600 yards in my testings, wasn't that already reality to hit b17 from that kind of distances?
Even with 30mm which has low velocity...

[MiG Eater]

The Japanese and Germans had this same problem when attacking tail gun equipped bombers.  The reason is wind resistance.  You, the attacker, are firing into the relative wind in the direction of flight.  The tail gunner's bullets will have less wind resistance (for the same muzzle velocity) since they are being fired opposite to the direction of flight.  Compare high muzzle velocity tail mounted .50's to the 1/3 slower cannon rounds in a fighter and you'll find a vast difference between the effective/max ranges of the two weapons.  I'm impressed if this is modeled in Aces High!

[Fishu]

Err, you miss one thing, there are many cases where LW shot B17s from beyond 1000 yards and hit.
I've read about hit % results for few guns from as far as 1400 yards (including that low low ball throwing 30mm)

[aces38]

The high velocity cannon rounds of the Mk8 FW will go farther than the .50 cal under same condittions, even though the MV is slightly lower, especially when you are just lobbing rounds at a bomber. At 390 Knots in a B-52 we had about the same effective range as a F-15 with the 20mm Vulcan flying up our tail- 1 mile. You all are forgetting the fact that its not just Velocity that matters, its the Coefficiant of drag vs the MASS of the object. The cannon round has more weight for the ammount of drag it generats so it will go farther for the same reason a 16" Naval cannon will travel farther than a .50 cal round even though the 16" MV (muzzle velocity) is far lower than the .50 cal machingun round. in a straight test the HV 20mm will go farther that the .50 cal.

[MiG Eater]

Fishu,

Luftwaffe fighters shot down B-17's from 1000 yds attacking from the rear of the bomber?  Where did you see/read about this?  That's extraordinary marksmanship in an aircraft considering the amount of rounds typically took to damage or down a heavy bomber.  I definately want to read about that! wow!

I've spoken to a B-17 crewman who related that the cannon shells often bounced off the skin of the wings and fuselage without penetrating or exploding.  While a screwdriver could poke through the thin metal skin at a 90 degree angle, the shells we're hitting some surfaces of the skin at angles of less than 20 degrees from directly aft.  There wasn't enough inertia left in the shells after their flight to penetrate the skin and fuze themselves.  Other times the shells would explode on contact with the skin before penetration creating a hell of a racket with little or no internal structural damage.    The experience of being hit and receiving damage from a bomber beyond effective cannon range is not without an historical parallel.  

MiG

[Hristo]

Hmm, but didn't Luftwaffe use the 'rotation detonator', not the impact one.

When shell enters an airframe, its rotation slows down/stops, and the detonator activates the charge.

Would be neat if AH modeled that, and the reliablility of the type, compared to the impact detonators. Also would be nice to have shells exploding in the air if they don't hit anything.

[juzz]

Yes! Self destructing rounds. The Germans used them for most of their ammo I think. After all they didn't want stray HE rounds landing on people all over Germany.